document title: we appreciate your feedback · 2016. 6. 22. · council of 1 7 april 201 3 on...

Document title:

Publishing date: 23/07/2013

We appreciate your feedback

Please click on the icon to take a 5’ online surveyand provide your feedback about this document

http://www.acer.europa.eu/Lists/Survey/NewForm.aspx?documentid=ACER-2015-19033&Source=http%3a%2f%2fwww.acer.europa.eu

ACERAgency for the Cooperationof Energy Regulators

OPINION OF THE AGENCY FOR THE COOPERATION OF ENERGYREGULATORS No 16/2013

of 18 July 2013

ON THE DRAFT REGIONAL LISTS OF PROPOSED ELECTRICITYPROJECTS OF COMMON INTEREST 2013

THE AGENCY FOR THE COOPERATION OF ENERGY REGULATORS,

HAVING REGARD to Regulation (EU) No 347/20 1 3 of the European Parliament and of theCouncil of 1 7 April 201 3 on guidelines for trans-European energy infrastructure and repealingDecision No 1 3 64/2006/EC and amending Regulations (EC) No 7 1 3/2009, (EC) No 714/2009and (EC) No 715/2009’, and, in particular, Annex 111.2(12) thereof;

HAVING REGARD to the favourable opinion of the Board of Regulators of 1 7 July 2013,delivered pursuant to Article 1 5(1) of Regulation (EC) No 713/2009 of the EuropeanParliament and of the Council of 1 3 July 2009 establishing an Agency for the Cooperation ofEnergy Regulators2,

WHEREAS:

(1) On 14 June 201 3 the draft regional lists of proposed projects of common interest (PCIs)falling under the categories set out in Annex II. 1 of Regulation (EU) No 347/201 3 weresubmitted to the Agency for the Cooperation of Energy Regulators (the Agency).

(2) Those draft regional lists were submitted to the Agency together with the minutes of themeeting of the decision-making bodies of the Regional Groups of 1 3 June 201 3 andwithout any opinions of Member States concerning electricity proposed PCIs, whichMember States may present to the Regional Groups, pursuant to Annex 111.2(9) of theRegulation (EU) No 347/2013.

(3) The assessments and evaluations by National Regulatory Authorities (NRAs), in linewith Annex 111.2(7) of Regulation (EU) No 347/2013, following a “checklist template”prepared by the Agency (see Annex II) contribute to the present opinion,

HAS ADOPTED THIS OPINION:

1. On the process for establishing the draft regional lists of proposed PCIs

1 . 1 Preparatory phase

1j L 1 15, 25.4.2013, p.39.20JL211, l4.8.2009,p.l.

Page 1 of 26

ACER

— Agency for the Cooperationof Energy Regulators

Since March 2012, preparatory work for the identification of PCIs was carried out andconvened by the European Commission. Ad-hoc Working Groups were set up and taskedwith the establishment of draft regional lists of proposed PCIs. The ad-hoc Working Groupswere seen as forerunners to the Regional Groups.

The approach adopted during this work was anticipatory, with the objective to implement aPCI selection process on the basis of the following key elements which were alsoincorporated into Regulation (EU) No 347/201 3 , namely:

. regional cooperation on infrastructure;

. engagement of Member States, NRAs, Transmission System Operators (TSOs), theEuropean Commission, the Agency, the European Network of Transmission SystemOperators for Electricity (ENTSO-E) and other project promoters, in each region;

. identification of draft regional lists of PCIs with the help of an assessmentmethodology (scoring point system), intended to measure the contribution of theprojects to market integration, competition and system flexibility, sustainability andsecurity of supply.

1 .2 Ad-hoc Working Group activities

The activities of the ad-hoc Working Groups were carried out in line with the schedulepresented in the following table3. The ad-hoc Working Groups convened regularly fromMarch 2012 until April 2013.

Month or period Main activitiesMarch 201 2 First meeting, discussion of the draft terms of reference for the

ad-hoc Working GroupsMay/June 2012 Second meeting, discussion of the questionnaire for collecting

proj ect information, identification of weighting values forcriteria

July 2012 First round of submission ofproject applications andquestionnairesPublic consultation by the European CommissionThird meeting, discussion of the methodology

September 2012 Fourth meeting, first results from project assessment anddiscussion

November 2012 Fifth meeting, results of eligibility assessment and discussionJanuary/February 201 3 Sixth meeting, results of scoring assessment, presentation of

the evaluations and assessments ofNRAs, discussionApril 201 3 Seventh meeting, identification of proposed proj ects of

common interest, names, grouping and competing projects

The Agency notes the difficult circumstances under which the ad-hoc Working Groups had towork, and the valuable work produced by them. This work progressed while, inter alia:

3 There were occasional differences in specific regions. The work of the ad-hoc Working Groups for smart gridprojects had a different timeline (with six meetings), but a similar overall approach.

Page 2 of 26

ACERAgency for the Cooperation

— of Energy Regulators

. ad-hoc Working Groups were being settled and terms of reference for work werebeing prepared;

. there was not a consistent database of data for the electricity projects; and

. the cost-benefit analysis (CBA) methodology under Article 1 1 of Regulation (EU) No347/201 3 was under development by ENTSO-E, in cooperation with the EuropeanCommission and the Agency4.

The Agency also notes that the selection process was designed and implemented under stricttiming requirements and sometimes fluctuating provisions5 of the draft Regulation (EU) No347/2013.

1 .3 Regional Group activities

After the entry into force of Regulation (EU) No 347/201 3 establishing the Regional Groups,a consultation of stakeholders was carried out at the Electricity Regulatory Forum (“FlorenceForum”, 1 6 May 201 3), a “Stakeholder Consultation (environmental) on the draft regionalPCI lists” event6was held on 5 June 201 3 and a meeting of the decision-making bodies of theRegional Groups took place on 13 June 2013.

1 .4 Main conclusions and recommendations

Notwithstanding the difficulties encountered during the anticipatory selection process, theAgency acknowledges the merits of the establishment of this process and of terms ofreference and roadmaps which allowed the draft regional lists of proposed PCIs to beavailable soon after the adoption of Regulation (EU) No 347/2013.

In particular, the Agency believes that the experience of the ad-hoc Working Groupsprocesses in the current round (which, for instance, included common timelines for theelectricity ad-hoc Working Groups) should be taken into proper consideration when definingthe rules of procedures of the Regional Groups7 and the deadlines for application andprovision of data by project promoters for future selection rounds. In that respect, the Agencysees that the electricity Regional Groups should aim at jointly defining common rules ofprocedures and common timelines. The Agency calls on the European Commission to play akey role in ensuring common approaches and cross-regional consistency between theRegional Groups. The Agency will also strive for cross-regional consistency between the

4 ENTSO-E, “ENTSO-E Guideline for Cost Benefit Analysis of Grid Development Projects, Draft 12 June2013”.5 E.g. the criterion on cross border relevance in Article 4(1)(c) was still significantly different with respect to itsfinal formulation till Autumn 20 12. Cf. Note from General Secretariat ofthe Council ofthe European Union toDelegations, “Draft Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on guidelines for trans-Europeanenergy infrastructure and repealing Decision No 1364/2006/EC and amending Regulations (EC) No 714/2009and 715/2009”, 5139/6/12, REV 6, 6 September 2012.http://register.consilium.europa.eulpdf/en/12/stO5/stO5 1 39-reO6.enl2.pdfIn the same draft version of Regulation (EU) No 347/2013, the role of the Agency and of NRAs did not yetcorrespond to the fmal provisions of Regulation.6 http://ec.europa.eu/energy/events/20l30529stakeholderregionalpcilistsen.htm7 According to Article 3(2) ofRegulation (EU) No 347/2013, each Group shall adopt its own rules of procedure.

Page 3 of 26


different Groups and will ensure, when relevant, the exchange of information on workrepresenting an interregional interest.

The Agency also appreciates the efforts of the ad-hoc Working Groups and the RegionalGroups to ensure adequate involvement of stakeholders and transparency, inter alia via apublic consultation8 in June 2012, via a stakeholder consultation at the 24th ElectricityRegulatory Forum9 in May 201 3 , activities under Annex 111.2(5) of Regulation (EU) No347/2013 and via public information events’0 and presentations. The Agency recommendscontinued effort on broad stakeholder involvement and the provision of adequate transparencyabout the work ofthe Regional Groups.

2. On the criteria and other methodological aspects for establishing the draftregional PCI lists

2.1 Data consistency and the role ofthe ENTSO-E Ten-Year Network Development Plan

Consistency across regions is a specific focus of this Opinion. The only source of ‘uniform’data’ available for the current selection process was the ENTSO-E Ten-Year NetworkDevelopment Plan (TYNDP) 201212. However, even these data were not fully comparable forsome projects’3.Furthermore, the TYNDP was not prepared for and aligned with the datarequirements of the PCI selection process. Regretfully, datasets were occasionally incomplete;particularly lacking some monetised aspects ofbenefits for the majority of projects.

Data provided for non-TYNDP projects were more difficult to compare directly, because thepromoters of these projects could not use ENTSO-E databases and software tools to generatefigures for their projects. However, the choice of tasking ENTSO-E to assess non-TYNDPprojects having applied for selection allowed the completion of the dataset within the tighttime constraints of the process. Yet, the increase of Grid Transfer Capacity (GTC) by someprojects was assessed without taking into account internal network constraints.

The Agency considers that the future approach in which the TYNDP is the sole basis for allPCIs will promote data consistency. The Agency recommends that ENTSO-E continues toalign the desired datasets, and that further discussions take place on how non-ENTSO-E

8 http ://ec europa. eu/energy/infrastructure/consultations/20 1 20620_infrastructureplan_en.htm9 However, the draft regional lists of proposed PCIs submitted for consultation contained rather limitedinformation on the proposed projects, therefore it could have been difficult for some stakeholders to form theiropinion.10 E.g. Information Day on the process of identifying Projects of Common Interest in energy infrastructure, 17July 2012. http://ec.europa.eulenergy/infrastructure/events/201207 17 energy infrastructure infoday en.htrnGrid Information Day - Discover the trans-European energy infrastructure for tomorrow, Sustainable EnergyWeek, 25 June 2013.11 However, even the TYNDP data was only clearly consistent at cluster level.12 ENTSO-E, ‘10-Year Network Development Plan 2012”, 5 July 2012.https://wwwentsoe.eu!fileadrnin/useruploadllibrary/SDC/TYNDP/20 12/TYNDP 2012 report.pdf‘3 ALready in its opinion on the ENTSO-E Ten-Year Network Development Plan 2012, the Agency suggested anadditional column indicating the type of investment items (overhead line, underground line, substation) and thusavoiding bundling different elements in a single “investment item”.

Page 4 of 26


promoters can present their projects on a consistent basis with TYNDP projects. Detailedrecommendations are provided in Section 2.5.

2.2 Consistency. clustering and grouping of investment items

First, it is important to build a common understanding about “clustering”, for which theAgency first refers to ENTSO-E definitions. According to the ENTSO-E “Frequent Answersand Questions ENTSO-E Cost Benefit Methodology”, an investment is an individualequipment or facility, such as a transmission line, a cable or a substation. According to theENTSO-E draft CBA methodology, a TYNDP project (i. e. “TYNDP cluster “) is defined as acluster of investment items that have to be realised in total to achieve a desired effect.Therefore, a project consists ofone or a set ofvarious investments. An investment should beincluded only f the project without this investment does not achieve the desired effect.Therefore, taking also into account the THiNK definitions’4,in this Opinion “clustering”refers to the presence of significant positive interactions between complementary investments.On the other hand, when the added value of one investment is decreased by the presence ofanother one, i.e. those investments are competing, “grouping” is proposed.

The issue of consistency in the TYNDP 2012 clustering approach across Europe flowedthrough to the current selection process. The ad-hoc Working Groups had to face significantdifficulties in selecting individual PCIs from quite wide TYNDP clusters. In its Opinion onENTSO-E TYNDP 2O12’ the Agency appreciated the clustering of single investments intoprojects of pan-European significance to highlight the interdependence of investment itemsand to provide a more global view of proposed investments necessary to meet the energypolicy requirements. However, the Agency also regarded further development of theclustering methodology as essential for the provision of a consistent clustering approachthroughout Europe, and recommended that ENTSO-E provides further details on theimportance of an investment item and its possible impacts on the whole cluster.

The current PCI draft regional lists are partly composed of clustered investments (TYNDPprojects) and of single non-TYNDP projects. This difficulty, which affects comparability ofprojects, should be solved in the future selection rounds, whereby the TYNDP will be the solebasis for the selection of PCIs.

The current PCI selection round also highlighted the need to specifically assess the case ofcompeting projects at the same border (see Section 3 of this Opinion for specific informationon competing projects). From a methodological point of view, the Agency notes that, whenpresenting their assessments of projects, the NRAs of the North Seas group proposed to“group” some of the competing projects between the UK and Ireland and, thus, clearlyidentifying their competing nature. Detailed recommendations are provided in Section 2.5.

14 THINK, “Cost Benefit Analysis in the Context ofthe Energy Infrastructure Package”, Final Report, January2013 . http://www.eui.eu/Projects/THINK!Documents/Thinktopic/THINKTopic 1 O.pdf15

http://www.acer.europa.eu/Officialdocuments/ActsoftheAgency/Opinions/Opinions/ACER%200pinion%2006-2012.pdf

Page5of26

N

ACER— Agency for the Cooperation— of Energy Regulators

2.3 Cross-regional consistency of application of criteria and assessment methodology

The Agency notes the intention of the ad-hoc Working Groups to develop an assessmentmethodology for the first PCI selection process, which strived to use common criteria acrossregions in line with the approach finally taken by Regulation (EU) No 347/201 3 . Thismethodology (“scoring point system”) is summarised in Annex I ofthis Opinion.

At the same time, the Agency notes that the scoring point system adopted in the currentselection process assigns subjective weighting to the specific evaluation criteria. Further, thecriteria adopted in the scoring point system have entailed double counting of project impacts,for example:

. grid transfer capacity is accounted for both in the security of supply and in the RESintegration criteria;

. RES integration is also accounted for in the socio-economic welfare indicator.

The Agency also notes that a full monetisation of costs and benefits was not undertaken bythe ad-hoc Working Groups. In August 2012, the Agency suggested to include project costs’6more appropriately in the PCI selection process, as they are a necessary element from aregulatory point of view. The Agency considers that the missing cost dimension in the scoringpoint system constitutes a significant drawback in the current selection process.

However, the Agency also positively notes that this scoring point system has not been used byad-hoc Working Groups neither by Regional Groups so far in the current selection round forthe purpose of discarding projects from the draft regional lists. Indeed, some projects havebeen discarded on the basis of general eligibility criteria in Article 4( 1 ) of Regulation (EU)No 347/2013, while other projects have been withdrawn by promoters. According to Annex111.2(14) of Regulation (EU) No 347/201 3, the use of ranking for discarding projects is stillpossible for the European Commission if the total number of proposed PCIs will exceed amanageable number.

Finally, the Agency notes that the assessments and evaluations performed by NRAs did notmake use of the ad-hoc Working Groups’ scoring point system and adopted instead a“checklist template” approach (summarised in Annex II of this Opinion), which included asimplified evaluation of costs and benefits.

With the aim of achieving a manageable number of PCIs on the Union list, Regulation (EU)No 347/201 3 indicates that the “PCI status” can be a limited resource. If the allowed numberof PCIs is a substantial limitation, the Agency would suggest that a net benefit figure is used

16 The Agency suggested in August 2012 the following concrete adaptations to the draft methodology:- To avoid double counting, by using a combination of socio-economic and security-of-supply indicators.- To monetise the security-of-supply indicator, by multiplying the value oflost load and the variation of expectedenergy not supplied with and without the project.- To take GTC and RES integration aboard just as a part of the social welfare indicator, because using them asseparate indicator would be superfluous and distort the evaluation.- To use investment cost figures - available - for a balanced approach resulthig in a net benefit assessment.The aforementioned suggestions were the basis for preparing in October 2012 the “checklist template” for NRAassessments and evaluations.

Page 6 of 26


in the selection of PCIs. This approach would allow the PCI selection process to achieve agreater net benefit, compared to the possible alternative of using the benefit-cost ratio. On theother hand, the benefit-cost ratio could also be considered as the adoption of a net benefitfigure could lead to inappropriately wide clusters, because promoters might attempt toincrease the net benefit, e.g. by including more investment items in a cluster or by mergingtwo potentially independent clusters.

2.4 Level ofmaturity of projects

Annex 111.2, Point (1), Regulation (EU) No 347/2013 stipulates that promoters of a projectpotentially eligible for selection as a PCI shall submit an application to the Group thatincludes, for projects having reached a sufficient degree of maturity, a project-specific cost-benefit analysis.

In the Agency’s view, a “sufficiently mature” project is a project which has a sufficient levelof i) certainty of the expected costs and benefits and ii) knowledge about the factors affectingexpected costs and benefits and their ranges. The Agency also believes that it is up to projectpromoters to provide evidence about the degree of maturity of their projects, by submitting aproj ect-specific CBA that demonstrates reasonably narrow ranges of probable values for costsand benefits.

For future selection rounds, the Agency deems necessary to define (as far as possible) when aproject is to be considered as mature’7. For instance, “under consideration” status in theTYNDP is a strong indication that a project is not yet mature. For this kind of projects, thepriority would be to complete the feasibility studies, in order to eventually reach a level ofsufficient maturity. The Agency deems that the “highest possible priority” conferred to thiskind of projects in the regional investment plans and in the national development plans,according to Article 3(6) of Regulation (EU) No 347/201 3 , should be intended as a highpriority for undertaking further studies.

For future selection rounds, a simplified selection process could be considered for not-yet-mature proj ects applying for selection. The data collection phase and the monitoringprocesses could also be simplified, in order to have a manageable total number of PCIs, evenwith more non-mature projects in the Union list. When these projects reach sufficientmaturity, they will need to be fully reassessed in the next PCI selection round.

2.5 Main conclusions and recommendations

On data consistency and the role ofthe ENTSO-E TYNDP

A consistent project assessment needs a proper data base. The Agency therefore recommendsthat work be continued by ENTSO-E to further improve the suitability of TYNDPassumptions and modelling for use in PCI selection, as the TYNDP will be the sole basis forPCI selection. Stakeholders, including NRAs, should be involved, in order to ensure the

17 Before further investigations on the concept of maturity, the level of maturity would correspond to the actualsubmission of a project-specific CBA either for the purpose of PCI selection (Annex III of Regulation (EU) No347/2013) or in the process ofinvestment requests (Article 12 ofRegulation (EU) No 347/2013).

Page 7 of 26

ACER— Agency for the Cooperation

of Energy Regulators

quality and consistency of data inputs, featuring among others consistency in electricity andgas scenarios. The Agency also considers that the robustness of future PCI assessments willbe improved by sensitivity analyses, for which the assumptions and results are presented in atransparent manner.

The Agency recommends that data collection is improved by using revised questionnaires forproject promoters (which could be developed on the basis of the checklist template in AnnexII of this Opinion), aimed at getting additional information (especially on benefits) to the datapresented in the TYNDP. This seems particularly relevant for collecting the results ofsensitivity analyses. The Agency also considers that supporting information and materialproving the maturity of a project will improve the selection process.

The Agency considers that matching the regional groups of the ENTSO-E SystemDevelopment Committee (or at least the ENTSO-E Regional Investment Plans) with theRegional Groups set out by Regulation (EU) No 347/201 3 would be worthwhile to ensureconsistency in future selection rounds.

Finally, the Agency recommends that Regional Groups minimise the time gap between thefinalisation of the ENTSO-E TYNDP (corresponding to the time when the Agency issues itsopinion on it) and the adoption of the Union list. A time span of eight months should be atarget for the next PCI selection round.

On consistency, clustering and grouping of investment items

The Agency recommends a consistent clustering approach to be applied throughout Europe inthe TYNDP and subsequently for the PCI selection round. Details on the importance of eachinvestment item for the expected benefits to be delivered by the cluster to which theinvestment item belongs should be clear before one or more investment items are proposed asPCIs. In the Agency’s view, the eligibility, the cross border impact, the costs and (to theextent possible’8)the benefits, should be assessed in a first step for each investment itemhaving applied for selection.

Given the limited consistency of clustering across Europe so far, the Agency suggests that the201 3 Union list is only considered at the level of each individual PCI. This is withoutprejudice to project-specific CBAs, which are expected to prove the truly complementarity ofPCIs inside clusters, in line with the draft version of the ENTSO-E CBA methodology andwith the Agency’s recommendations.

In cases where projects are competing, the Agency expects ENTSO-E to develop a specificassessment of cross-border capacities, as already recommended in the Agency Opinion on theENTSO-E TYNDP 2012. The aim should be to identify a target value (MW) for theadditional transfer capacities at cross-border boundaries’9.When a target capacity has been

18 is acknowledged that the evaluation of benefits for each item inside a truly complementary cluster may becomplex and time consuming. Thus, the rules based on GTC proposed by ENTSO-E in the draft CBAmethodology are seen as a positive step to achieve a more consistent clustering approach across Europe.19 The target capacity value (MW) would correspond to the amount of new capacity that can be built with apositive cost-benefit balance.

Page 8 of 26

ACERAgency for the Cooperation

— of Energy Regulators

identified at a border and its value is below the expected increase of cross-border grid transfercapacity from all projects, it would make sense to define a specific treatment (“grouping”) ofcompeting projects, in order to avoid building some less beneficial interconnection capacity20.

The Agency believes that this recommendation, together with guidance for inclusion of thirdparty projects in the ENTSO-E TYNDP21,would provide an appropriate balance betweenTSO-promoted and third-party-promoted projects in the next PCI selection rounds.

On cross-regional consistency of criteria

The Agency considers that clear, transparent and quantified/monetised criteria for theselection of PCI from the TYNDP list are crucial requirements from a regulatory perspective.

The Agency looks forward to a consolidated methodology for CBA being developed andagreed for the next PCI selection round. Such methodology shall be based on the ENTSO-ECBA methodology pursuant to Article 1 1 of Regulation (EU) No 347/2013 and becomplemented by project-specific features. The Agency recommends that the RegionalGroups will not refer to any “scoring point system” and will work on monetised costs andbenefits being explicitly used in future selection rounds. This will also allow objectively totest the criterion in Article 4( 1 )(b) of Regulation (EU) No 347/20 1 3 (“the potential overallbenefits ofthe project [. . .] outweigh its costs, including in the longer term”).

The Agency recommends that, in future selection rounds, the indicators “benefit-cost ratio”and “net benefit” of each proposed PCI are presented, stemming from a CBA that is as fullymonetised as practicable22.

The Agency recommends that a common discounting method, in line with the guidance to beprovided by the CBA methodology, including a common discount rate, a common timereference (present year) for discounting, a common time range of analysis shall be applied toenable a fair comparison of PCIs in future selection rounds.

On the level of maturity of proj ects

For the first Union list of PCI, the Agency recommends that prospective promoters of PCIswho wish to access some form of Union financial assistance work seriously towards provingthe maturity of their projects by providing project-specific CBAs in line with Article 12(3)(a)of Regulation (EU) No 347/201 3 by the submission time of their investment request (i.e. by3 1 October 2013). The Agency also believes that the project-specific CBA should be in line

20 When presenting their assessments of projects having applied for PCI status to the ad-hoc Working Groups,the NRAs of the ACER North Seas mirror group proposed to “group” some of the competing projects proposedbetween the UK and Ireland.21 According to Annex 111.2(5) of Regulation (EU) No 347/2013, the European Commission shall issueguidelines on criteria to be applied by ENTSO-E when developing the TYNDP, in order to ensure equaltreatment and transparency of the process. The Agency expects that such guidance will significantly benefit fromthe current ENTSO-E procedure, which was developed in cooperation with stakeholders, the EuropeanCommission and the Agency.22 The Agency already made a proposal for increasing monetisation of effects over time in the “Agency positionon the ENTSO-E Guideline to Cost Benefit Analysis ofGrid Development Projects”, 30 January 2013.

Page 9 of 26


with the draft methodology published by ENTSO-E on 12 June 2013 and could includeadditional analysis on benefits in line with Regulation (EU) No 347/201 3 and with theAgency’ 5 recommendations23.

The Agency finally recommends that the concept of sufficient maturity is further investigatedby the Regional Groups, with a view to considering - as far as possible - simpler and fasterselection and monitoring processes for projects which are not yet sufficiently mature.

3. On the draft regional lists of proposed PCIs

3 . 1 Views expressed by Member States on the draft regional lists

After consideration of the minutes of the meeting of the decision-making bodies of theRegional Groups of 1 3 June 201 3 , the Agency understands that five proj ects having appliedfor selection were lacking support from Member States to whose territory the projects relate.If lack of support will be confirmed, according to Article 3(3)(a) of Regulation (EU) No347/2013, the projects cannot be in the regional list to be adopted by the decision-makingbody ofthe relevant Regional Group. The five projects are:

. Norway-United Kingdom interconnection between Sima or Samnanger (NO) andPeterhead (UK);

. France-Spain-United Kingdom interconnection between Western France (FR), Gatica(ES) and Indian Queens (UK);

. Spain-United Kingdom interconnection between Gatica (ES) and Indian Queens (UK);

. Spain-United Kingdom interconnection between Mougas (ES) and Plymouth (UK);

. hydro-pumped (seawater) storage in Spain—Mougas.

3 .2 Overview of the draft regional lists

The draft regional lists of proposed electricity PCIs were prepared by the following RegionalGroups:

. Northern Seas offshore grid (North Seas);

. North-South electricity interconnections in Western Europe (West);

. North-South electricity interconnections in Central Eastern and South Eastern Europe(East);

. Baltic Energy Market Interconnection Plan in electricity (Baltic);

. Smart grids deployment (Smart Grids).

The draft regional lists are composed of 125 proposed electricity projects of common interest,as summarised in the following table.

23 Recommendations and a list of 1 1 benefits were provided in the “Agency Position on the ENTSO-E Guidelineto Cost Benefit Analysis ofGrid Development Projects”, 30 January 2013.

Position%2Oon%2OENTSO-E%2OCBA.pdf

Page 10 of 26

ACER

— Agency for the Cooperation— of Energy Regulators

Group Proposed PCIs

Electricity transmission Electricity storage Smart grids

NorthSeas 23 3

West 27 5East 49 4Baltic 10 2Smart grids 2Total 109 14 2

The draft regional lists have been prepared by the Regional Groups after assessing 284projects (see table24).

Group Projects having applied for selectionElectricity transmission Electricity storage Smart grids

NorthSeas 45 3West 49 14East 143 5Baltic 19 2Smart grids 4Total 256 24 4

About cross-regional differences, the Agency notes that, since the beginning of the currentselection round, the ad-hoc East Working Group has been characterised by:

. a larger number of applications compared to other ad-hoc Working Groups (e.g. as ofOctober 2012, 143 out of 256 total transmission projects having applied for selection);

. a higher level of clustering compared to other ad-hoc Working Groups (in the NRAlist of eligible proj ects in January 201 3 , the ratio between the number of investmentitems and the number of clusters was about 4 in this ad-hoc Working Group comparedto an average value around 1 .5 in the other ad-hoc Working Groups);

. a larger number of internal projects (32 internal projects and 1 7 interconnections in thedraft regional list of proposed PCIs), compared to other ad-hoc Working Groups (27internal projects and 33 interconnections).

This constituted one significant difficulty for the assessments.

The Agency positively acknowledges the limitation of the electricity transmission draftregional lists to projects with clear/significant cross-border nature, compared to the largenumber of projects having applied for PCI status, which included projects with limited cross-border relevance25.

24 The number of transmission projects corresponds to the information received by the Agency in October 2012.However, 14 transmission projects were afready withdrawn at that time and other changes (such as the change ofpriority corridor) affected a few projects.25 remarked that the NRAs’ assessment and evaluation concluded in January 2013 focused on 168transmission projects, compared to the 256 transmission projects having applied for selection. Other projectshave been considered ineligible at first check.

Page 11 of26


The Agency deems important that the Union list provides sufficient transparency and clarityon the investment items inside each PCI26, in the few cases where such approach is adopted(see groups of “lines” in Annex III of this Opinion). Such an approach would also facilitatethe monitoring of the implementation of PCI.

The Agency acknowledges the work done by the Regional Groups to present some proposedPCIs in the “North Seas” and “West” draft regional lists at a more disaggregate level(compared to the TYNDP 2012 investment items). This is the case of proposed PCIsbelonging to TYNDP investment items 21 .81 , 43 .A90, 90. 136 and 92.146. In general, theAgency commends the efforts of involved stakeholders to face the difficulties due to largeTYNDP clusters.

3 .3 Electricity smart grids

The draft regional lists of electricity smart grids PCIs were prepared by the respective Groupcovering all Member States27.The preparatory work of the ad-hoc Working Group benefited,inter alia, from previous activities on identification of performance indicators and benefitscarried out by the Smart Grids Task Force, the European Commission Joint Research Centre28and by the European Regulators Group for Electricity and Gas29.

The ad-hoc Working Group (Smart Grids Task Force Expert Group) prepared the “Definitionof an assessment framework for projects of common interest in the field of Smart Grids”30,which helped consistency in the application of project promoters and in the evaluation phase.The directly involved NRAs contributed to the ad-hoc Working Group work by providingproject evaluation and assessment on the basis of a common format prepared by the Agencyand NRAs.

Two electricity smart grid projects out of four having applied for PCI status are included inthe draft regional list. Taking into account the assessment and evaluation made by NRAs, theAgency believes that the draft list of electricity smart grids PCIs deserves inclusion in the201 3 Union list of PCIs. The Agency recommends that prospective promoters of electricity

26 According to the definitions in Articles 2(3) and 2(4) of Regulation (EU) No 347/2013, a project of commoninterest means one or several lines, pipelines, facilities, equipment or installations falling under the energyinfrastructure categories.27 Annex 1(10) ofRegulation (EU) No 347/2013, priority thematic area “smart grids”.28 v. Giordano, I. Onyeji, G. Fulli, M. Sanchez Jiménez, C. Filiou, “Guidelines for conducting a cost-benefitanalysis ofsmart grid projects”, JRC reference report, 2012,http ://ses.jrc.ec.europa.eu!sites/ses/files/documents/guidelines for conducting a cost-benefit_analysis_of_smart_gridprojects.pdf29 ERGEG, “Position Paper on Smart Grids - An ERGEG Conclusions Paper”, Ref: E10-EQS-38-05, 10 June2010. http://www.energyregulators.eu/portallpage/portaWEERHOME/EER_PUBLICATIONS/CEERPAPERS/Electricity/201 O/E 10-EQS-3 8-O5SmartGridsConclusions_10-Jun-20l0Corrigendum.pdf30 After work starting in March 2012, the report was published in July 2012.

ork_sgtf_eg4.pdf

Page 12 of26

N



smart grids PCIs who wish to access some form of financing work towards completingproj ect-specific

3 .4 Electricity storage

The draft regional lists of electricity storage PCIs were prepared by the four ad-hoc WorkingGroups North Seas, West, East and Baltic. In line with the request by the EuropeanCommission in September 2012, no assessment and evaluation have been presented by theinvolved NRAs to the aforementioned Groups. As a consequence of the lack of a draft CBAmethodology for storage, of limited quantified information available on the beneficial impactof proposed storage PCIs and of the lack of NRA assessment, the Agency is not in a positionto assess and provide an opinion on the draft regional lists of electricity storage PCIs.

3 .5 Electricity transmission

3 .5 . 1 Electricity transmission: the treatment of TYNDP and non-TYNDP proj ects

The electricity transmission projects having applied for selection have been classified by thead-hoc Working Groups as “TYNDP” and “non-TYNDP”.

The break-down of TYNDP and non-TYNDP proposed PCIs for each draft regional list aredisplayed in the following table.

Group TYNDP proposed Non-TYNDP Non-TYNDPPCIs TSO-proposed third-party-

PCIs proposed PCIsNorthSeas 13 0 10West 26 0 1East32 43 3 3Baltic 9 1 0Total 91 4 14

The Agency believes that specific attention (see recommendation on “grouping” in Section2.5) is needed where projects are proposed both by transmission system operators and by thirdparty promoters on the same border. The 14 proj ects proposed by third party promoters33involve United Kingdom (in 1 0 cases), Ireland (8), France (3), Greece (2), Italy (2), Austria,Cyprus, Israel and Switzerland. A summary is presented in the following table34.

31 According to Article 14(4) of Regulation (EU) No 347/2013, smart grids PCI shall be eligible for grants forworks, if projects generate significant positive externalities and lack commercial viability.32 The East draft list includes one project with competing project promoters. It is counted in the table as one non-TYNDP third-party proposed project.33 This defmition includes the case of a TSO and third parties as promoters ofthe same project.34 The proposed project Norway-United Kingdom interconnection between Sima or Samnanger (NO) andPeterhead (UK) is not included in the table (see section 3.1).

Page 13 of 26

ACER

Agency for the Cooperationof Energy Regulators

Border Number of third-party TSO projects on the same borderproj ects

IE-UK 8 No (1 TYNDP project IE-UK “under consideration”applied for PCI status)

FR-UK 2 YesAT-IT 1 YesCH-IT 1 YesCY-GR-IL 1 NoGR 1 Yes

3 .5 .2 Electricity transmission: main conclusions and recommendations

The Agency, while taking into account the difficulties encountered during the preparation ofthe draft regional lists of PCIs (as highlighted in the previous sections) and somemethodological weaknesses of the process, believes that, on the basis of the overall positiveassessment and evaluation made by NRAs with regard to projects having applied for the PCIstatus, the draft regional lists of electricity transmission PCIs merit adoption as the 2013Union list of PCIs.

To help overcome the potential ambiguity about clustering, degree of maturity, costs andbenefits and other aspects of some projects included in the draft PCI regional lists and withoutprejudice to the provisions about information and publicity in Article 1 8 of Regulation (EU)No 347/201 3 , the Agency suggests that, soon after the 3 1 October 2013 deadline forinvestment requests, the 2013 Union list is complemented by the following additionalinformation on each individual PCI:

. the level of maturity35;

. the status of the project36;

. the expected commissioning date;

. the expected costs, with degree of certainty indicated;

. the expected benefits, with degree of certainty indicated;

. the indicators “benefit-cost ratio” and “net benefit”37.

The corresponding information for projects in the draft regional lists (as far as available to theAgency in the current selection round) is presented in Annex III of this Opinion.

35 Before further investigations on the concept of maturity, the level of maturity would correspond to the actualsubmission of a project-specific CBA either for the purpose of PCI selection (Annex 111 of Regulation (EU) No347/2013) or in the process ofinvestment requests (Article 12 ofRegulation (EU) No 347/2013).36 The TYNDP adopts five different statuses: under consideration, planned, design and permitting, underconstruction and commissioned.37 For calculating these indicators, a common discounting method seems necessary. As initial proposal forproviding additional information on electricity PCIs in the first Union list, the Agency would deem reasonableFrontier’s short-term approach with a common discount rate of 4% based on European Commission “Impactassessment guidelines”, a common time range of 25-years lifetime for all projects and a common reference year(present year) for discounting.

Page 14 of 26


The Agency notes that all PCIs will be fully reassessed in the next PCI selection round(expected in 2015), in line with Regulation (EU) No 347/2013, and recommends that thisassessment will follow the suggestions provided in this Opinion, without prejudice to the PCIstatus of projects included in the first Union list which will remain fully in force until a newUnion list is adopted.

The Agency believes that, with respect to future PCI selection rounds, the EuropeanCommission should clarify in the Delegated Act what stability measures beyond those inArticle 5 of Regulation (EU) No 347/2013 are available to project promoters, if a project willno longer be in the PCI Union list.

Done at Ljubljana on 18 July 2013.

For the Agency:

A1brto PototschnigDirektor

Page 15 of 26


Annex I — The “scoring point system” used in the ad-hoc Working Groups

The ad-hoc Working Groups adopted a scoring point system based on the following specificevaluation criteria:

1 . Grid transfer capacity at border (from 1 0 up to 3 0 points)2. Social and economic benefit (from 10 up to 30 points)3 . Integration of renewable energy sources (RES) (from 0 up to 30 points)4. Security of Supply (from 10 up to 30 points)5. Flexibility (from 10 up to 30 points)6. Bonus points for interconnection projects in countries that have not yet reached the

1 0% interconnectivity target (1 0 points)

The values of indicators for criteria 2, 3, 4 and 5 were derived from the TYNDP “colourcode” indicators. The other values were obtained on the basis of information on grid transfercapacity increase (GTC) provided by the promoters, in conjunction with an ENTSO-E table ofexisting GTCs38.

The same criteria were consistently adopted across regions, with different weightings for thefour electricity priority corridors, as presented in the table below.

Evaluation criterion North Seas West East Baltic1 GridTransferCapacity 18.7 18.9 26.8 25.82 Socioeconomic benefit 15.3 18.9 15.7 14.73RESintegration 38.0 38.8 32.3 36.04 Security of supply 1 4.0 1 1 .7 1 2.6 11.85 Flexibility 14.0 11.7 12.6 11.8

38 ENTSO-E, NTC Values winter 2010-2011.

Page 16 of 26


Annex II — The “checklist template” for the preparation of NRAsassessments and evaluations

The Agency promoted a consistent approach in the NRA assessment39 of electricity projectshaving applied for selection, by defining a common interpretation of the work to be carriedout in the PCI selection process, along the lines set out by the European Commission andtaking into account the Agency’s and NRAs’ (expected) duties according to the draftRegulation (EU) No 347/2013.

For the purposes of both identifying potential sources of inconsistency and carrying outevaluation of the European added value40 of proj ects having applied for selection, on 18October 2012 the Agency prepared draft checklists (separately for electricity and gas).

The checklists were intended as a template to ease the tasks of:

. Assessing the quantity and quality of available data for each project having applied forselection and whether essential data is available (data check);

. Helping focus the discussion on whether a project having applied for selection met thegeneral and specific criteria as specified in the draft Regulation (EU) No 347/2013.

The checklist templates have been prepared bearing in mind the following general andtechnical principles:

. Apply similar approach for electricity and gas, with some differences in recognition ofthe specific features of these two energy sectors, in particular the different stage ofdevelopment of TYNDPs and of cost-benefit analyses;

. Limit the technical information needed for filling out the checklist to data which wasgenerally already available via TYNDP, Regional Investment Plans, andquestionnaires;

. Make the checklists straightforward and short, so to minimise the time required to fillthem out;

. Accompany the online version of the checklists by informative notes, to providehighlights on each field in the lists, particularly about the criteria of the Regulation(EU) No 347/201 3 and the sources of information.

The structure ofthe checklists included four parts:

. Respondent(s);

. Project information;

. Opinion on criteria;

. Overall assessment.

39 The approach was also consistent (to the extent possible and appropriate) with the NRA assessment ofproposed gas PCIs. For more details, see the Agency opinion on the draft regional lists of proposed gas PCIs2013.40 The wording “European added value” was in line with the draft version of the Regulation (EU) No 347/2013presented in the note 5 139/6/12, REV 6, 6 September 2012.

Page 17 of 26



With regard to the general criteria in Article 4(1) of the Regulation (EU) No 347/2013, theelectricity checklist included the assessment of the Member States involved and of twopass/fail tests:

. The increase (at least 500 MW) of grid transfer capacity across a cross-border section(to be identified by the respondent)4’;

. The voltage of the transmission equipment, being compliant with minimum voltagesin Annex II of the Regulation (EU) No 347/201 3 (220 kV or more for lines, 1 50 kV ormore for cables).

With regard to Article 4(2) of the Regulation (EU) No 347/201 3 , for electricity, the ENTSO-ETYNDP 2012 identified impacts and benefits, along with measurement rules, for dealing withthe three specific criteria of the Regulation (EU) No 347/2013 (market integration,competition and system flexibility, security of supply and sustainability). Correspondingly,Part III ofthe checklist adopted a simplified approach, taking into account TYNDP indicators.

41 Although the 500 MW limit for significant cross-border impact does no longer constitute an eligibilitycriterion under Article 4(1) of the Regulation (EU) No 347/2013 for projects crossing the borders of twoMember States I European Economic Area country, its use in the assessment still favoured, by a simplified andimmediately applicable approach, the identification ofprojects with higher European added value.

Page 18 of 26

ACER

— Agency for the Cooperation— of Energy Regulators

8. Corridor:

9. Belonging to a corridor (yes if Q8 is not “none”)

1o Iftransmission line, voltage: kV 11. Ifline, atleast22O kV?

12. If transmission cable, voltage: kV I 3. If cable, at least I 50 kV?

14. Eauioment for safe. secure. efficient operation (describ&: 15. Equipment?

I 6. Category of the project (yes if one yes in QI I or QI 3 or QI 5)

Part I: RESPONDENT(S)

I . Respondinci NRA (country): 2. Mutually aireed answer on behalf of (countries)3. Envisaged cooperation with NRAs (depending on impacted countries, see Q17, Q20) *SD*:

Part II: PROJECT INFORMATION

4. Title of the project (project name in EC tables):

5. Proiect code (EC oroiect number without letters-do NOT insert TYNDP numbering):

6. Type of proiect: Non-TYNDP LI TYNDP 7. Commissioning date:

Part Ill: OPINION ON COMPLIANCE WITH CRITERIA

Baltic fl East fl North Seas fl West— — —

17. Greater GTC increase on which border (only MS-MS borders)? 18. How much?

NoneI—I

27. Is yearly SEW + (EENS x VOLL) areater than cost divided by I 5?

28. If Q27 no, is there any evidence of roiect benefits qreater than costs?

29. Cost-benefit of the nroiect (yes if one yes in Q27 or Q28)

30. Cluster (see EU TYNDP Annex I) no. 31 . Investment item no.

32. Cost of TYNDP cluster? M€

34. Are yearly cluster benefits greater than cluster costs divided by 15?

35. Are interdependencies of items in cluster properly explained? *SD*

36. Cost-benefit of the cluster (yes if Q34 yes and Q35 yes)

NA

NA

NA

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

Lack

Lack

Lack

Lack

MW

19. Is the greater GTC increase (Q18) at least 500 MW? I Yes I No I Lack20. Other borders (MS-MS or MS- 3ft countries) impacted (indicate borders) ?21 . How much variation c. ._. .__. of GTC at other borders? MW,

22. Cross-border imDact of the proiect (yes if QI 9 yes) I Yes No Lack. . . ‘— — , I I I

23. Cost of Droiect?

24. Reduction of cieneration and transmission costs (socio-economic welfare SEW)? M€/vear25. Contribution to security of supply (reduction of expected energy not supplied EENS)? MWh/year26. Value of lost load VOLL (if available country by country indicate a weighted value): €/MWh

(ã3O-36’ Fill only if it is aTYNDP project and if it is not assessed at investment level — Otherwise not

No

NoppIicable “NA’

Lack

Lack

Lack

33. Benefit of TYNDP cluster? M€/vea

37. Were costs and benefits assessed during year 2011 or 2012? Yes No Lack

38. Assumptions on other projects in the impact area consistent with TYNDP? Yes No Lack

39. Is methodology for evaluating costs and benefits consistent with TYNDP? Yes No Lack

40. Are Q38 & Q39 assumptions & methodology supported by documentation? Yes No Lack

41 . Assumptions of the project (yes if Q37+Q38+Q39+Q40 all yes) *SD* Yes No Lack

Part_IV:_OVERALL ASSESSMENT

42. Consistent application of criteria [yes if Q9 + Q16 + Q22 + (Q29 or Q36) Yes No Lack+ Q41 are all yes]*Legend*: Lack=Iack of data, NA = not applicable *SD*: please provide short description in narrative format.

Lack

Lack

Lack

Page 19 of 26

AC

ER

Age

ncy

For

the

Coo

pera

tion

ofE

nerg

yR

egul

ator

s

Annex

III

-In

form

atio

no

npro

ject

sin

cluded

inth

ed

raft

regio

nal

list

s

The

follow

in

ginform

ation

fo

rth

edraft

regional

lists

of

pro

po

sed

transm

ission

PC

Is

(as

far

as

available

42

to

the

Ag

en

cy

in

the

cu

rren

t

selectio

nround

based

on

th

eE

NT

SO

-E

TY

ND

P2012

in

fo

rm

atio

nand

on

the

NR

Aassessm

en

ts

and

ev

alu

atio

ns),

is

presen

ted

:

.the

statu

sof

th

ep

ro

ject;

.the

expected

com

missioning

date;

Northern

Seas

offshore

arid

(Nor

thS

eas

Cod

eP

CI

Sta

tus

ofP

CI

inE

xpec

ted

TY

ND

P20

12co

mm

issi

onin

gda

te1.

1.1

Zee

brug

ge(B

E)

-vicinity

of

Ric

hbor

ough

and

Pla

nned

2018

Can

terb

ury

(UK

)1.

1.2

Tw

oli

nes

Dun

gene

ss-

Sel

lind

ge-

Can

terb

ury

(UK

)P

lann

ed20

19/2

020

Pla

nned

2014

/201

51.

2T

wo

offs

hore

hubs

conn

ecte

dto

Zee

brug

ge(B

E)

Pla

nned

2016

1 .3

.1

End

rup

(DK

)-

Nie

büll

(DE

)U

nder

cons

ider

atio

n20

17-2

025

1 .3

.2B

runs

bütt

el-

Nie

büll

(DE

)U

nder

cons

ider

atio

n1.

4.1

Kas

sö(D

K)

-A

udor

f(D

E)

Und

erco

nsid

erat

ion

1.4.

2A

udor

f-H

ambu

rg/N

ord

(DE

)D

esig

nan

dpe

rmit

ting

2015

-202

01.

4.3

Ham

burg

/Nor

d-

Dol

lern

(DE

)D

esig

nan

dpe

rmit

ting

1.5

End

rup

(DK

)-

Eem

shav

en(N

L)

Des

ign

and

perm

itti

ng20

181 .

6L

aM

arty

re(F

R)

-G

reat

Isla

ndor

Kno

ckra

ha(I

E)

Und

erco

nsid

erat

ion

2025

appr

ox1.

7C

oten

tin

(FR

)-

vici

nity

of

Exe

ter

(UK

)N

otin

TY

ND

P20

12n.

a.1 .

8T

ourb

e(F

R)

-C

hill

ing

(UK

)U

nder

cons

ider

atio

nca

2020

1 .9

Coq

uell

es(F

R)

-F

olke

ston

e(U

K)

Not

inT

YN

DP

2012

2015

42L

egen

d:na.

not

avai

labl

e.

Pag

e20

of

26

AC

ER

Age

ncy

for

the

Cooper

atio

nof

Ene

rgy

Reg

ulat

ors

Cod

eP

CI

Sta

tus

ofP

CI

inE

xpec

ted

TY

ND

P20

12co

mm

issi

onin

gda

te1

.1 0

Wil

ster

(DE

)-

Tonst

ad

(NO

)D

esi

gn

and

perm

itti

ng

2018

1.

11C

o.O

ffaly

(IE

)-

Pem

bro

ke

and

Pen

tir

(UK

)N

ot

inT

YN

DP

20

122017

1.12.1

Co

olk

era

gh

-C

ole

rain

ehubs

(IE

)-

Hu

nte

rsto

nst

ati

on,

Not

inT

YN

DP

2012

Isla

y,

Arg

yll

an

dL

ocati

on

CO

WF

s(U

K)

2016

1.12.2

Nort

hern

hub,

Dubli

nan

dC

od

lin

gB

ank

(IE

)-

Not

inT

YN

DP

2012

Tra

wsf

ynyd

an

dP

em

bro

ke

(UK

)

1.

13

Nort

hW

est

Irela

nd

(IE

)-

Mid

lands

(UK

)N

ot

inT

YN

DP

20

122017

1.

14G

lin

sk,

May

o(I

E)

-C

onnah’

sQ

uai,

Deesi

de

(UK

)N

ot

inT

YN

DP

20

122017

1.1

5.1

Iris

hm

idla

nds

(IE

)-

Pem

bro

ke

(UK

)N

ot

inT

YN

DP

2012

2017

2018

1.

15

.2Ir

ish

mid

lands

(IE

)-

Alv

erd

isco

tt,

Devon

(UK

)N

ot

inT

YN

DP

20

122020

1.

15.

3Ir

ish

coast

(IE

)-

Pem

bro

ke

(UK

)N

ot

inT

YN

DP

2012

1.

16

Kvil

ldal

(NO

)-

Bly

th(U

K)

Desi

gn

and

perm

itti

ng

2020

No

rth

-So

uth

ele

ctr

icit

yin

terc

onnecti

ons

inW

est

ern

Euro

pe

(West

)

Cod

eP

CI

Sta

tus

ofP

CI

inE

xpec

ted

TY

ND

P20

12co

mm

issi

onin

gda

te2.

1W

estt

irol

-Z

ell-

Zil

ler

(AT

)P

artl

yun

der

2020

co

nst

ructi

on

2.2.

1L

ixhe

(BE

)-

Obe

rzie

r(D

E)

Des

ign

and

perm

itti

ng20

172.

2.2

Lix

he-

Her

dere

n(B

E)

Des

ign

and

perm

itti

ng20

172.

2.3

Upg

rade

of

Zut

enda

alsu

bsta

tion

(BE

)D

esig

nan

dpe

rmit

ting

n.a.

2.3

.1

Aub

ange

(BE

)-

Bas

char

age/

Sch

iffl

ange

(LU

)U

nder

cons

ider

atio

n20

172.

3.2

Pha

se-s

hift

ing

tran

sfor

mer

inS

chif

flan

ge(L

U)

Und

erco

nsid

erat

ion

2017

Pag

e21

of

26

AC

ER

Age

ncy

for

the

Cooper

atio

nof

Ene

rgy

Reg

ulat

ors

Code

PC

IS

tatus

of

PC

Iin

Expected

TY

ND

P2012

co

mm

issio

nin

g

date

2.4

Cod

rong

iano

s(I

T)

-L

ucci

ana

(FR

)-

Suv

eret

o(I

T)

Pla

nned

mid

term

2.5.

1G

rand

eli

e(F

R)

-P

ioss

asco

(IT

)D

esig

nan

dpe

rmit

ting

2018

2.5.

2T

rino

-L

acch

iare

lla

(IT

)U

nder

cons

truc

tion

2015

2.6

San

taL

loga

ia-

Bes

canO

(ES)

Und

erco

nstr

ucti

on20

142.

7A

quit

aine

(FR

)-

Gat

ica

(ES

)U

nder

cons

ider

atio

nap

prox

.20

202.

8P

hase

-shi

ftin

gtr

ansf

orm

erin

Ark

ale

(ES)

Des

ign

and

perm

itti

ng20

16

2.10

Ost

erat

h-

Phi

lipp

sbur

g(D

E)

Und

erco

nsid

erat

ion

long

-ter

m2.

11B

runs

bitt

el-G

rof3

gart

ach

-W

ilst

er-G

rafe

nrhe

infe

ldU

nder

cons

ider

atio

nlo

ng-t

erm

(DE

)2.

12.1

Bor

der

area

(DE

)-

Mei

ning

en(A

T)

-R

Uth

i(C

H)

Pla

nned

long

-ter

m2.

12.2

poin

tR

omm

elsb

ach,

Her

bert

inge

n,T

ieng

en,

poin

tP

lann

edlo

ng-t

erm

Wul

lens

tett

en,

poin

tN

iede

rwan

gen

(DE

)-

bord

erar

eaD

E-A

T2.

1 3N

iede

rrhe

in(D

E)

-D

oeti

nche

m(N

L)

Des

ign

and

perm

itti

ng20

162.

14W

oodl

and

(IE

)-

Tur

leen

an(U

K)

Des

ign

and

perm

itti

ng20

172.

1 5S

rana

nagh

(IE

)-

Tur

leen

an(U

K)

Und

erco

nsid

erat

ion

2020

2.1 6

Thu

sis/

Sil

s(C

H)

-V

erde

rio

Infe

rior

e(I

T)

Not

inT

YN

DP

2012

2018

2.1 7

.1A

irol

o(C

H)

-B

aggi

o(I

T)

Und

erco

nsid

erat

ion

mid

term

2.17

.2U

pgra

deof

Mag

enta

subs

tati

on(I

T)

Und

erco

nstr

ucti

onn.

a.2.

17.3

Pav

ia-

Pia

cenz

a(I

T)

Pla

nned

long

Ter

m

2.17

.4T

iran

o-

Ver

deri

o(I

T)

Pla

nned

long

Ter

m

2.1 8

.1

Tw

oli

nes

Alf

ena

-P

edra

lva

-V

ila

Fri

a(P

T)

Pla

nned

2017

Des

ign

and

perm

itti

ng20

14-2

015

2.18

.2F

rade

sB

-R

ibei

rade

Pen

a-

Fei

ra(P

T)

Des

ign

and

perm

itti

ng20

15-

2016

2.1 9

Vil

aF

ria

-V

ila

doC

onde

-R

ecar

ei(P

T)

-B

obor

as-0

Des

ign

and

perm

itti

ng20

16C

ovel

o(E

S)

/%i

Pag

e22

of2

6

AC

ER

—A

genc

yfo

rth

eC

oope

rati

onof

Ene

rgy

Reg

ulat

ors

No

rth

-S

ou

th

electricity

interconnection

sin

Cen

tral

Eastern

and

So

uth

Eastern

Eu

ro

pe

(E

ast);

Cod

eP

CI

Sta

tus

ofP

CI

inE

xpec

ted

TY

ND

P20

12co

mm

issi

onin

gda

te3.

1.1

St.

Pet

er(A

T)

-Ts

ar(D

E)

Des

ign

and

perm

itti

ng20

15-2

017

3.

1.2

St.

Pet

er-

Tau

ern

(AT

)D

esig

nan

dpe

rmit

ting

2019

3.

1 .3

St.

Pet

er-

Ern

stho

fen

(AT

)U

nder

cons

truc

tion

2013

3.2

.1L

ienz

(AT

)-

Ven

eto

regi

on(I

T)

Pla

nned

long

term

3.2

.2L

ienz

-O

bers

iela

ch(A

T)

Und

erco

nsid

erat

ion

>20

223.

2.3

Vol

pago

-N

orth

Ven

ezia

(IT

)D

esig

nan

dpe

rmit

ting

mid

term

3.3

Nau

ders

(AT

)-

Mil

anregion

(IT

)U

nder

cons

ider

atio

nlo

ngte

rm3.

4W

urm

lach

(AT

)-

Som

plag

o(I

T)

Not

inT

YN

DP

2012

2015

3.5

.1

Ban

j aL

uka

(BA

)-

Lik

a(H

R)

Und

erco

nsid

erat

ion

2020

3.5.

2T

hree

line

sB

rinj

e-

Lik

a-

Vel

ebit

-K

onjs

ko(H

R)

Pla

nned

2020

Pla

nned

2020

Pla

nned

2020

3.6

.1V

etre

n-

Bla

goev

grad

(BG

)N

otin

TY

ND

P20

1220

7-20

183

.6.2

Tsa

reve

ts-

Plo

vdiv

(BG

)N

otin

TY

ND

P20

123

.7.1

Mar

itsa

Eas

t1

(BG

)-

N.

San

ta(E

L)

Des

ign

and

perm

itti

ng20

18-2

020

3.7.

2T

wo

line

sM

arit

saE

ast

1-

Plo

vdiv

-B

urga

s(B

G)

Des

ign

and

perm

itti

ng20

14-2

016

Des

ign

and

perm

itti

ng20

14-2

016

3.7.

3M

arit

saE

ast

1-

Mar

itsa

Eas

t3

(BG

)D

esig

nan

dpe

rmit

ting

2014

-201

53.

8.1

Dob

rudj

a-

Bur

gas

(BG

)P

lann

ed20

16-2

018

3.8.

2V

idno

-S

vobo

da(B

G)

Pla

nned

2015

-201

73

.8.

3S

vobo

da-

spli

ttin

gpo

int

Var

na-S

tupi

na(B

G)

Pla

nned

2015

-201

73.

8.4

Cer

navo

da-

Sta

lpu

(RO

)P

lann

ed20

173

.8.

5G

utin

as-

Sm

arda

n(R

O)

Pla

nned

2020

3.8.

6G

adal

in-

Suc

eava

(RO

)P

lann

ed20

21

Pag

e23

of

26

AC

ER

—A

genc

yfo

rth

eC

oope

rati

onof

Ene

rgy

Reg

ulat

ors

Cod

eP

CI

Sta

tus

ofP

CI

inE

xpec

ted

TY

ND

P20

12co

mm

issi

onin

gda

te3

.9.1

Zer

jave

nec

(HR

)/H

eviz

(HU

)-

Cir

kovc

e(S

I)D

esig

nan

dpe

rmit

ting

2016

3.9.

2L

ines

Div

aèa

-K

iece

-B

eric

evo

-P

odlo

g-

Cir

kovc

eP

lann

ed20

20-2

025

(SI)

3.

10.1

Vas

ilik

os(C

Y),

Kor

akia

,C

rete

(EL

),H

ader

a(I

L)

Not

inT

YN

DP

2012

201 6

(if

star

t3

.10

.2K

orak

ia,

Cre

te-

Att

ica

regi

on(E

L)

Not

inT

YN

DP

2012

2013

)

3.

11Si

xli

nes

Ver

nero

v-

Vit

kov

-P

rest

ice

-K

ocin

-P

lann

ed20

19M

irov

ka-

Ceb

in(C

Z)

Und

erco

nsid

erat

ion

2021

Pla

nned

2022

Pla

nned

2018

Pla

nned

2024

Und

erco

nsid

erat

ion

2024

3.12

Pha

sesh

ifti

ngtr

ansf

orm

erin

Hra

dec

(CZ

)N

otin

TY

ND

P20

1220

173.

13.

1L

auch

stad

t-

Mei

ting

en(D

E)

Und

erco

nsid

erat

ion

2022

3.1 3

.2H

alle

/Saa

le-

Sch

wei

nfur

t(D

E)

Des

ign

and

perm

itti

ng20

183

.14

. 1E

isen

hütt

enst

adt

(DE

)-

Ple

wis

ka(P

L)

Pla

nned

2020

3.14

.2K

rajn

ik-

Bac

zyna

(PL

)P

lann

ed20

203.

14.3

Mik

ulow

a-

wie

bodzi

ce(P

L)

Pla

nned

2020

3.

1 5.

1V

ierr

aden

(DE

)-

Kra

jnik

(PL

)D

esig

nan

dpe

rmit

ting

2016

3.

15.2

Pha

sesh

ifti

ngtr

ansf

orm

ers

inP

olan

dD

esig

nan

dpe

rmit

ting

2015

3.

1 6.1

Gön

yi5

(HU

)-

Gab

iko

vo

(5K

)U

nder

cons

ider

atio

n20

173.

16.2

Velkl3u

r-

Gab

iko

vo

(5K

)P

lann

ed20

163.

1 6.3

Ext

ensi

onof

Gyö

rsu

bsta

tion

(HU

)U

nder

cons

ider

atio

n20

173

.17

SajO

vánk

a(H

U)

-R

imav

ská

Sob

ota

(5K

)U

nder

cons

ider

atio

n20

173

.18

.1

Kis

várd

aar

ea(H

U)

-V

elké

Kap

uan

y(5

K)

Und

erco

nsid

erat

ion

2021

3.1 8

.2L

emea

ny

-V

elké

Kap

uan

y(5

K)

Pla

nned

2018

3.1 9

.1V

illa

nova

(IT

)-

Las

tva

(ME

)U

nder

cons

truc

tion

mid

term

Pag

e24

of

26

AC

ER

—A

genc

yfo

rth

eC

ooper

atio

nof

Ene

rgy

Reg

ulat

ors

Cod

eP

CI

Sta

tus

ofP

CI

inE

xpec

ted

TY

ND

P20

12co

mm

issi

onin

gda

te3

.19

.2F

ano

-T

eram

o(I

T)

Des

ign

and

perm

itti

ngn.

a.

3.

19.3

Fog

gia

-V

illa

nova

(IT

)D

esig

nan

dpe

rmit

ting

n.a.

3.20

.1W

est

Udi

ne(I

T)

-O

krog

lo(S

I)P

lann

edlo

ngte

rm

3.20

.2W

est

Udi

ne-

Red

ipug

lia

(IT

)D

esig

nan

dpe

rmit

ting

mid

term

3.21

Sal

gare

da(I

T)

-D

ivaè

a-

Ber

icev

ore

gion

(SI)

Und

erco

nsid

erat

ion

mid

term

3.2

2.1

Res

ita

(RO

)-

Pan

cevo

(RS

)D

esig

nan

dpe

rmit

ting

2015

3.2

2.2

Por

tile

deF

ier

-R

esit

a(R

O)

Des

ign

and

perm

itti

ng20

16

3.22

.3L

ines

Res

ita

-T

imis

oara

-S

acal

az-

Ara

d(R

U)

Des

ign

and

perm

itti

ng20

22

Bal

tic

Ene

rgy

Mar

ket

Inte

rcon

nect

ion

Pla

nin

elec

tric

ity

(Bal

tic)

Cod

eP

CI

Sta

tus

ofP

CI

inE

xpec

ted

TY

NU

P20

12co

mm

issi

onin

gd

ate

4.1

Ishö

j/B

jeve

rsko

v(D

K)

-B

entw

isch

lGüs

trow

(DE

)P

lann

ed20

16-2

018

4.2.

1K

ilin

gi-N

Om

me

(EE

)-

Rig

aC

HP

2su

bsta

tion

(LV

)P

lann

ed20

204.

2.2

Har

ku-

Sin

di(E

E)

Und

erco

nstr

ucti

on20

19

4.3

Est

onia

IL

atvi

aI

Lit

huan

iasy

nchr

onou

sN

otin

TY

ND

P20

1220

20in

terc

onne

ctio

n4.

4.1

Gro

bina

-Im

anta

(LV

)D

esig

nan

dpe

rmit

ting

2018

4.4.

2E

khyd

dan

-N

ybro

/Hem

sjO

(SE

)U

nder

cons

ider

atio

n20

19

4.5.

1A

lytu

s(L

T)

-L

T/P

Lbo

rder

Des

ign

and

perm

itti

ng20

15

(202

0—

seco

ndst

age)

4.5.

2T

wo

line

sS

tani

slaw

ów-

Ust

role

ka-

Uls

ztynM4tki

Des

ign

and

perm

itti

ng20

20(P

L)

Des

ign

and

perm

itti

ng20

20

Pag

e25

of

26

AC

ER

Age

ncy

for

the

Cooper

atio

nof

Ene

rgy

Reg

ulat

ors

I4.5.

3K

ozie

nice

-S

iedi

ceU

jrza

nOw

(PL

)D

esig

nan

dpe

rmit

ting

2020

L••

Plo

ck-

Ols

ztyn

Mtk

i(P

L)

Des

ign

and

perm

itti

ng20

20

Sm

art

grid

sde

ploy

men

t(S

mar

tG

rids

)

Cod

eP

CI

Sta

tus

ofP

CI

inE

xpec

ted

TY

ND

P20

12co

mm

issi

onin

gda

te10

.1N

orth

Atl

anti

cG

reen

Zon

eP

roje

ct(I

E-N

I)N

otap

plic

able

n.a.

10.2

Gre

en-M

e(F

R-I

T)

Not

appl

icab

le20

19

Pag

e26

of2

6

Document title:

Publishing date: 23/07/2013

We appreciate your feedback

Please click on the icon to take a 5’ online surveyand provide your feedback about this document

http://www.acer.europa.eu/Lists/Survey/NewForm.aspx?documentid=ACER-2015-19033&Source=http%3a%2f%2fwww.acer.europa.eu